No trolls please! - Nvidia vs AMD (Opinions/Facts)

[Prysin]

3 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Yes, but design it wouldn't be the same thing.  Wasn't the last dual solution on a single pcb the 690?  After that we got the titans and gimped titan tis.  Nvidia wins the single card solution, but in the dual on one pcb that goes to AMD.  Also, doesn't' a 290x crossfire score slightly higher than a 295x2 as well?

sometimes 2x 290X solution is better.

It depends. If using bad 290X cards, like reference, Gigabyte, ASUS or XFX (they run hot in CF, coolers arent overbuilt like some others are) then 295x2 is better.

If you were to run dual MSI, Sapphire, Powercolor or Club3D however, then the cooling would be more then adequate and as thus, they would outperform the 295x2.

[sof006]

Common trend I have noticed and someone just before pointed it out is that AMD performs better at a much higher resolution... is there a reason for this? More bus width or something else? Now I am not too bothered about higher resolution as I don't really plan on going higher than 1080p, possibly make the jump to 1440p in the future but in all honesty I am 95% happy with 1080p gaming. I have yet to be swayed to anything higher than that unless I was to be watching a movie.  

[Mattyp92]

1 minute ago, sof006 said:

Common trend I have noticed and someone just before pointed it out is that AMD performs better at a much higher resolution... is there a reason for this? More bus width or something else? Now I am not too bothered about higher resolution as I don't really plan on going higher than 1080p, possibly make the jump to 1440p in the future but in all honesty I am 95% happy with 1080p gaming. I have yet to be swayed to anything higher than that unless I was to be watching a movie.  

Faster memory bus, more raw power, more VRAM.  The AMD cards are usually overbuilt but have worse optimizations, which is why NVidia can keep up with less raw power (cores, memory, clock and bus speeds)

[sof006]

Just now, Mattyp92 said:

Faster memory bus, more raw power, more VRAM.  The AMD cards are usually overbuilt but have worse optimizations, which is why NVidia can keep up with less raw power (cores, memory, clock and bus speeds)

This has always confused me about AMD which is why I am questioning the whole "DirectX 12/Vulkan" scenario right now. When games come out, will Nvidia be able to easily keep up with AMD or will we see AMD happily out pace Nvidia in pretty much all DX12 games. I know before the benchmarks show that Nvidia releases a driver then AMD does then Nvidia does and it appears to be swings and roundabouts. But in the future when ACTUAL triple A titles release with full support for Direct X 12. Who is much more likely to beat whom without any noticeable issues. Because all Direct X 11 games appear to run better on Nvidia hardware... which is not uncommon. 

[Prysin]

4 minutes ago, sof006 said:

Common trend I have noticed and someone just before pointed it out is that AMD performs better at a much higher resolution... is there a reason for this? More bus width or something else? Now I am not too bothered about higher resolution as I don't really plan on going higher than 1080p, possibly make the jump to 1440p in the future but in all honesty I am 95% happy with 1080p gaming. I have yet to be swayed to anything higher than that unless I was to be watching a movie.  

if there is one technology you should look into, that i personally feel is more important then resolution. is HDR:

This is a feature AMDs new Polaris cards (and maybe some of the old ones?) will have.

 

read about it here.

http://anandtech.com/show/9836/amd-unveils-2016-vistech-roadmap/3

 

TL;DR

the difference between HDR and todays picture quality is well, incomparable. You would see richer colors, darker darks, whiter whites, richer grays, deeper and more vibrant colors. IN all honesty, i am tempted to get both AMD + Nvidia GPU for the multi-vendor crossfire options that come with DX12 (and the ability to choose which card to use, so i always have the best possible performance regardless if it is a Nvidia title or not). But if Nvidia doesnt support HDR, well..... screw the FPS loss, i want the prettiest picture i can get on my monitor. If that costs me 5-10 FPS, i dont give a shit. Ill enjoy the scenery instead.

[Mattyp92]

Just now, sof006 said:

This has always confused me about AMD which is why I am questioning the whole "DirectX 12/Vulkan" scenario right now. When games come out, will Nvidia be able to easily keep up with AMD or will we see AMD happily out pace Nvidia in pretty much all DX12 games. I know before the benchmarks show that Nvidia releases a driver then AMD does then Nvidia does and it appears to be swings and roundabouts. But in the future when ACTUAL triple A titles release with full support for Direct X 12. Who is much more likely to beat whom without any noticeable issues. Because all Direct X 11 games appear to run better on Nvidia hardware... which is not uncommon. 

From what I have read, DX12 supports better parallel performance than DX11 (advantage AMD) but really there is no way of knowing how it will actually play out in the end.  Somehow Nvidia has always won driver side to compensate and I don't see that stopping any time soon, unless AMD starts turning a profit.

[Prysin]

1 minute ago, Mattyp92 said:

From what I have read, DX12 supports better parallel performance than DX11 (advantage AMD) but really there is no way of knowing how it will actually play out in the end.  Somehow Nvidia has always won driver side to compensate and I don't see that stopping any time soon, unless AMD starts turning a profit.

DX12 doesnt rely much on drivers.

 

DX 11 works like this

 

game engine -> Nvidia/AMD driver -> DX11 -> hardware

 

DX12 however lets the game developers talk directly to hardware. They can control things down to the number of stream processors/CUDA cores to utilize for certain tasks....

[Prysin]

1 minute ago, valdyrgramr said:

That's what I meant.  Nvidia, after the 690, kinda decided that single cards were better with just 1 processor on the PCB.  AMD is the only one continuing that.  Of course an aftermarket sli or crossfire would be better.

You forgot the Titan Z... dual Titan Blacks on single PCB

[Mattyp92]

Just now, Prysin said:

DX12 doesnt rely much on drivers.

 

DX 11 works like this

 

game engine -> Nvidia/AMD driver -> DX11 -> hardware

 

DX12 however lets the game developers talk directly to hardware. They can control things down to the number of stream processors/CUDA cores to utilize for certain tasks....

Then that will lead it it being more of a developer thing to optimize for it and with AAA titles I would expect the devs to optimize for both types of cards (as long as they aren't just crappy ports)

[sof006]

2 minutes ago, Mattyp92 said:

Then that will lead it it being more of a developer thing to optimize for it and with AAA titles I would expect the devs to optimize for both types of cards (as long as they aren't just crappy ports)

So i'm hoping. I hate the whole "Nvidia paid of these people" and "AMD said this to those developers" as none of it is true. I highly doubt AMD and Nvidia would sabotage one another. They sort of need each other as they're the only real competitive GPU makers on the market.

[Mattyp92]

Just now, sof006 said:

So i'm hoping. I hate the whole "Nvidia paid of these people" and "AMD said this to those developers" as none of it is true. I highly doubt AMD and Nvidia would sabotage one another. They sort of need each other as they're the only real competitive GPU makers on the market.

Well I mean... look at what Intel did to AMD and what Microsoft was doing to everyone before the anti-trust lawsuits, I would say there is at least a grain of truth to those rumors.

[sof006]

Just now, Mattyp92 said:

Well I mean... look at what Intel did to AMD and what Microsoft was doing to everyone before the anti-trust lawsuits, I would say there is at least a grain of truth to those rumors.

I can understand there must be a least SOME even if a little sabotage but I doubt they'd go as far as to flat out destroying performance on another platform. Not on purpose at least. 

[ivan134]

2 minutes ago, sof006 said:

So i'm hoping. I hate the whole "Nvidia paid of these people" and "AMD said this to those developers" as none of it is true. I highly doubt AMD and Nvidia would sabotage one another. They sort of need each other as they're the only real competitive GPU makers on the market.

Oh, to be young and naive, and that goes for both AMD and Nvidia and any corporation.

 

Anyway, from your OP, i really wouldnt worry about a new architecture being disastrous. Even if one turns out to be a disaster, you can always buy the competitor's card. The 980 ti does not have a bright future ahead.

[sof006]

3 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

Oh, to be young and naive, and that goes for both AMD and Nvidia and any corporation.

 

Anyway, from your OP, i really wouldnt worry about a new architecture being disastrous. Even if one turns out to be a disaster, you can always buy the competitor's card. The 980 ti does not have a bright future ahead.

Not so much disastrous... Just disappointing. For example, not being that much better than current gen. 

[ivan134]

Just now, sof006 said:

Not so much disastrous... Just disappointing. For example, not being that much better than current gen. 

Bruh, the next  cards are going to be magical, sprinkled with fairy dust. There will be improvements. The only unknown is what those improvements wil cost.

[sof006]

Just now, ivan134 said:

Bruh, the next  cards are going to be magical, sprinkled with fairy dust. There will be improvements. The only unknown is what those improvements wil cost.

Hahaha, one can hope. I suppose Maxwell was pretty successful. And yes... the cost is always something to cry over.